Yesterday several Republicans came out against Arizona’s new immigration law. They are Senator Lindsey Graham, Florida senatorial candidate Marco Rubio, Governor Jeb Bush and Karl Rove. Each had reasons for their opposition.
Lindsey Graham:
CBS News: Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) said Tuesday he thinks Arizona's new immigration law is unconstitutional and that "it doesn't represent the best way forward" when it comes to addressing illegal immigration.
He added, however, that the law reflects "what good people will do" when they are left with no other options.
Speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Graham said Congress eventually needs to tackle immigration reform but that it will be "impossible" to achieve reform until citizens in states like Arizona feel that the borders are secure.
"In this environment there is no hope of it passing," he said.
Graham did not say on what grounds Arizona’s law is unconstitutional and considering Graham’s past, I am not too sure he knows why either. What we do know is that he, like his buddy McCain, is all about the amnesty. What Graham did get right though is that until the border is secure Americans are not going to be happy with any suggestions for immigration reform.
Marco Rubio:
The Buzz: Our legal immigration system must continue to welcome those who seek to embrace America’s blessings and abide by the legal and orderly system that is in place. The American people have every right to expect the federal government to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigration. It has become all too easy for some in Washington to ignore the desperation and urgency of those like the citizens of Arizona who are disproportionately wrestling with this problem as well as the violence, drug trafficking and lawlessness that spills over from across the border.
States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.
I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states’ requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now – securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.
Rubio adds a new concern, the pressure the law puts on law enforcement with “reasonable suspicion”. Given the national attention this law has received, Arizona police officers will have to dot every “i” and cross every “t” to make sure they do not become the poster child for racial profiling. Despite overblown claims from the left, I think for this reason, police officers will use this law very carefully.
Rubio also raises the very same concern I had about giving the government an inch and them taking a mile. After watching Congress blatantly steamroll the public to pass ObamaCare, I think we should all be cautious about giving government new authorities.
Jeb Bush:
Politico: […]"I think it creates unintended consequences," he said in a telephone interview with POLITICO Tuesday. "It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well."
The measure, signed into law last Friday, would require police to check the immigration status of any individuals they reasonably suspect are illegal immigrants and arrest them if they can't prove legal status.
Bush said he understood the anger that prompted the bill, but that immigration should remain a federal issue.
"I don't think this is the proper approach," he said.[…]
Jeb mirrors Rubio a tiny bit, in regards to the pressure the law puts on the law enforcement. However, Jeb is being a little disingenuous when he makes the law sound like police will just pull people over they suspect of being illegal. Section 2B of the law makes clear that the police must first have lawful contact with the individual (e.g. you get caught speeding or the police come to your house because of a disturbance), then if they have reasonable suspicion can they ask about your immigration status. Jeb, like his brother George, is an amnesty guy.
Karl Rove:
Orlando Sentinel: Rove, speaking to a crowd of about 500 at the mammoth senior community as part of a national book tour, said that while the law is understandable, it does present difficulties. The law has become the nation’s toughest anti-immigration measure.
“I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill,” he said to the standing-room-only crowd at the Colony Cottage Recreation Center. “I wished they hadn’t passed it, in a way.”
Still, Rove, who was promoting his book Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight, objected to comments by critics including President Barack Obama that the law will lead to problems such as racial profiling by police.
“These are modern police forces that respect the rights of people in their communities,” Rove said. “They’re going to do it on the basis of reasonable suspicion that these people are here illegally, like they’re driving a car with a Mexican license plate or they can’t speak English or they don’t have a drivers license.”
However, Rove said there may be other ways to tackle the issue.
“At the end of the day … I think there are better tools,” he said. “But I understand where it’s coming from.”
Rove too claims the law is unconstitutional, but also does not say how. I am not sure how it is unconstitutional since the reasonable suspicion part doesn’t kick in until after the police have lawful contact with a person.
The objections raised by the four of these men can all be tied to political reasons. In Rubio’s case it is because he is running in a state with a huge Latino population. In the cases of Graham, Bush and Rove, they are all thinking like Democrats, that amnesty will buy Hispanic votes for their party.
Via: The Orlando Sentinel
Posts
